updated 02:45 pm EDT, Wed September 15, 2004

NYT review of the iMac G5

David Pogue's notes the striking resemblance to the iPod, easy access to the internals, and innovative speaker placement, but says that Apple "muffed one detail: even the top-of-the-line model comes with only 256 megabytes of memory. That's typical for consumer computers these days, but on a creative powerhouse like the Macintosh, it's not enough." The article, however, says that while the design will lure iPod fans with its 'attention-grabbing' design, the "feature that will ultimately make them happiest has nothing to do with quiet fans or thin power cords. In the long run, they'll benefit most from the iMac's stealth feature: Mac OS X."

RAM Configuration

I'm so sick of people complaining about the RAM configuration. Apple does this to save the user money.

They know that most people that add RAM to a Mac do not buy it from Apple because you can just plain get it cheaper elsewhere. I know that I am going to put 1GB at least into an iMac of this speed. I would much rather replace a cheap 256 MB stick than replace a larger more expensive configuration, it is plain wasteful.

RAM IS CHEAP! for the price of a dinner and a movie you can put an additional 512 MB in that iMac. With as easy as it is to add things like RAM to this machine; Apple is doing everyone a favor by letting them install whatever they want for RAM.

Yes RAM is cheap

so make it 512MB. None of the Macs I administer have less than 512MB, performance simply sticks at our workplace with 256MB. It's really all about initial impression. If you want the user to say 'Wow this rocks' when they get it home, not 'Why does it take 3 seconds for a window to open when I double click it?' then Apple should start at 512MB. I am not complaining simply pointing out something Apple should consider. Why should a user have to upgrade it immediately after getting the Mac from Apple?

not quite true

that's rather flawed logic. yes, RAM is cheap so there's very little reason for apple not to put in a base of 512. considering 512 is the minimum amount to run OS X and any app of merit, it is silly for apple not to include it. for the consumer a) i doubt most imac purchasers would purchase RAM from a third party; the FUD around static discharge leaves many of them unwilling to install RAM themselves. b) as you say RAM is cheap, throwing out a $100 chip compared to a $50 chip isn't going to kill anyone. not to mention getting the computer to that "ideal" of 1 gig, would require the user to throw out the chip anyway.

happiest feature

... will not be the fact that they are regulated to playing Nanosaur because apple is too cheap to include a decent graphics card.

Why does apple alway have to flub up one critical feature in their designs? With a decent graphics card, the new iMac would be absolutely perfect. But yet again, I'm left wondering "what the h*** were they thinking?"

money

Apple doesn't do it to SAVE money, they do it to MAKE money. Most people don't know that memory costs half as much if they buy and install it themselves, so they have the Apple dealer do it for them for a hefty markup.

Re: money

Apple doesn't do it to SAVE money, they do it to MAKE money. Most people don't know that memory costs half as much if they buy and install it themselves, so they have the Apple dealer do it for them for a hefty markup.

Actually, I read elsewhere that one reason Apple doesn't upgrade the memory is because dealers don't want them to, allowing them to offer "double your memory" promotions (or make money on including it, just like Apple does when you try to go to 512).

And if Apple included default 512, people would complain if they included it as 2 chips (which would be cheaper for apple, but then would mean you'd have to throw one out to upgrade), or that they'd like to get less and cut the price of the computer because they're just going to be tossing it out and putting in their own 2GBs worth.